9th Circuit Court of Appeals At It Again

[Kennedy 0]

AP news on Yahoo

just because I know Billvon will love this

Appeals Court Reinstates Gun Lawsuit

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes committed with their products.

Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun manufacturers and distributors from such suits. The House in April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits nationwide and President Bush (news - web sites) has said he would sign it. Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to death and wounded five people at a Jewish day care center in a 1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

A Los Angeles federal judge in 2001 had thrown out the case, filed by families of the victims against Georgia-based Glock Inc., China North Industries Corp., RSR Management Corp. and RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc. The case was filed under California negligence and wrongful death statutes.

Messages left with attorneys for the companies were not immediately returned Thursday.

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

"I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision to sustain a claim like this one," said Peter Nordberg, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals. None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor paying any damages.

Private groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (news - web sites), also have sued, saying guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities. That case was thrown out of federal court in July.

The gunman in the 1999 shootings, Buford Furrow, is serving life in prison without parole.

The Senate probably will consider the immunity bill early next year, said Will Hunt, spokesman for Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a leading proponent of the legislation. Craig believes he has the votes to force the bill through the Senate despite filibuster threats, Hunt said.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kai2k1 0]

As Rush says "the 9th CIRCUS court of appeals.


What the hell ever happened to personal responsibility??

There's no truer sense of flying than sky diving," Scott Cowan

[Jib 0]

There's a reason why they're the most reversed in the country.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[TheAnvil 0]

Disgusting. What the hell is wrong with those people? Does the concept of personal responsibility mean anything to them? Obviously not. Truly disgusting. What about hammer manufacturers? I know HUNDREDS of people who have slammed their thumbs with a hammer. Fidiots.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Lee03 0]

Yeah, how about car makers, thousands of people get killed in car accidents.. shouldn't the car makers be procuited, after all, just like the gun makers, their products are responsible for the deaths of many!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Disgusting. What the hell is wrong with those people? Does the concept of personal responsibility mean anything to them? Obviously not. Truly disgusting. What about hammer manufacturers? I know HUNDREDS of people who have slammed their thumbs with a hammer. Fidiots.

I have seen several cases where hammer manufacturers were sued AND LOST on account of injuries sustained by users. (Colleagues of mine were expert witnesses in the cases).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Yeah, how about car makers, thousands of people get killed in car accidents.. shouldn't the car makers be procuited, after all, just like the gun makers, their products are responsible for the deaths of many!

Well, I don't know about "procuited", but car manufacturers are routinely sued following accidents. So, to follow your reasoning by analogy, gun manufacturers should be sued too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Since you would rather be judged by 12, as your sig line goes, why do you wish to deny the plaintiffs the right to have their case judged by a jury of their peers?

If the manufacturer was indeed negligent (which is not for you or me to judge) why should they be immunized?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jaaska 0]

I voted for: Are you really surprised?

It's a common joke here that in USA anyone can suit anyone for anything and anyone can suited

At my home university this is something that the international office always talks about when they are sending students to USA for exchange: "Watch out for those lawsuits!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well, I don't know about "procuited", but car manufacturers are routinely sued following accidents. So, to follow your reasoning by analogy, gun manufacturers should be sued too.

They are sued becaue of alleged defects in their product. Not because their product did exactly what it was supposed to do. What's the basis of the suit? Gun manufacturers made something that was used by a criminal for intentional illegal purposes.

Were any of those hammer manufacturers sued because someone used the hammer against someone else? Are car manufacturers sued because someone used the car to intentionally run someone else down?

And if you want to get into accidental misuse of a product, should all cars be equipped with breathalizers to prevent innocents from drunk drivers? If not, should all guns be required to have child safety locks? Justify one over the other.

Once again, it's the perception of guns, which are used legally and safely exponentially more than criminally or dangerously. Same as cars or hammers. But, because it's a gun, it's ok to put extra and unnecessary requirements or restriction on their owners and manufacturers.

[TheAnvil 0]

I hope you are kidding. That would be a far more egregious abuse of our judicial system than the suit in Kennedy's original post.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Kennedy 0]

There's this little thing called a criminal action. And when one of those happens, it breaks the chain of responsibility.

Hammer makers are sued, when their products are faulty and the cause of injury to the user. Car makers are sued, when something on the car fails. No one is saying the gun makers should be immune from all lawsuits. They are still liable for product safety and performance. If a gun fails, or blows up in your face, you can still sue.

The analogy is like this. If a hammer is used to kill somebody, do you sue Craftsman? If a drunk kills someone in his car, do you sue Ford? If a beer bottle is used to kill somebody, do you sue Anheuser-Busch? No, because they cannot control what a third party does.

Go Here and search S. 659

It's not denying anyone their day in court, it's preventing malicious suits that sought through court costs what they could not gain through legislation or judicial decisions.

According to centuries of common law, American jurisprudence, thirty-some state governments, a majority of congressmen and senators, the president, and nearly every judge to decide such a case, the manufacturer was, indeed, not negligent, or a public nuisance, or responsible for an act by a third party.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 226]

Hypothetical -

We do a skydive. I have already landed. You don't like me very much and swoop in an kick me in the head, breaking my neck.

So, question, should we hold the canopy manufacturer or the rig manufacturer responsible?

Perhaps the manufacturer of the plane. Apparently it functioned properly, but they still built the plane, and built it in a way that you could jump out of it.

Actually, if there was no air, then the plane couldn't be built, right, so lets go after the air manufacturer.

Just so there isn't any personal responsibility for your own actions, it's always someone elses fault, right?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

By the way, my sig line is a personal view on self defense, not on how to resolve every situation I come across. And really, I'd rather not be judged until I meet St. Peter at the pearly gates.

(I assume you recognize the six reference)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

oooh, pertinent example. I like it. So how about it Kallend, do we sue Mirage and Icarus if somebody borrows my rig, swoops in, and breaks your neck?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

oooh, pertinent example. I like it. So how about it Kallend, do we sue Mirage and Icarus if somebody borrows my rig, swoops in, and breaks your neck?

I thought you guys were so high on freedom. Why would you want to restrict someone the freedom to sue those companies if he/she so wishes. It is then up to the judge and jury to try the case. That is how the system is supposed to work.

It is a little rediculous to start whining about freedoms in one thread and then squashing some elses freedom because it doesn't fit with your views. One or the other gentlemen.

(By the way, I think that the law suit is rediculous, as I think of many such lawsuits in the US, but that is besides the point)

I thought people here thought that the federal government has restricted freedom too much as it is?

edited for spelling

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I have seen several cases where hammer manufacturers were sued AND LOST on account of injuries sustained by users.

Do you feel those verdicts were proper?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

car manufacturers are routinely sued following accidents. So, to follow your reasoning by analogy, gun manufacturers should be sued too.

Product defect lawsuits are justified.

However, in the case of the gun manufacturers, they are being sued for the criminal misuse of their products. That's lunacy. It's like an auto manufacturer being sued for the damages caused by a bank robber who flees the crime scene in a high speed car chase with police, and crashes.

Manufacturers are not responsible for the acts of criminals.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

However, in the case of the gun manufacturers, they are being sued for the criminal misuse of their products. That's lunacy. It's like an auto manufacturer being sued for the damages caused by a bank robber who flees the crime scene in a high speed car chase with police, and crashes.

Then I am sure a jury of 12 of your peers will make a similar decision. If not, maybe it is not such lunacy?

[TheAnvil 0]

Bar Rule #11 should apply in cases such as these. The uneducated masses don't comprehend that lawsuits cost these corporations money, and that corporations do not have an endless supply of money. That's the left's plan to win on the gun control issue - sue the companies into bankruptcy.

Almost makes me wish for a loser-pays legal system.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[turtlespeed 226]

Can't they counter sue for litigation fees?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Can't they counter sue for litigation fees?

Or ask the NRA for some of their money back

[PhreeZone 20]

Actually to relate this to cars:

Imagine a car manufactor building thosands of a car like a Viper even if there is not a market that could support that number of new car purchases then just dumping the cars into the market to be rid of them. Then the cars are favorite items of choice for use in high speed pursuits and end up killing lots of people.

The people are not sueing over the use of the gun, they are sueing since they feel the manufactors are making more guns then the legal market can support. The rest of the guns then end up on the illegal markets and that is what they are sueing to stop.

You do have to wonder where the hundreds of thosands of new gun buyers are coming from every year to legally buy all the new guns that are being made. If its proven that the manufactors are clearly making more guns then they know the market can legally support, then thats an issue they need to address without a lawsuit.

Personally I think its a stupid lawsuit.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

oooh, pertinent example. I like it. So how about it Kallend, do we sue Mirage and Icarus if somebody borrows my rig, swoops in, and breaks your neck?

I though I made it clear that I'm not passing judgement in this or another case.

In principle you can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean you'll win.

I don't see that anyone or any company should be immune from suits UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

I object to one class of corporation (gun manufacturers) enjoying an immunity that Ford or GM or GE or Stanley Tools or my neighborhood dry cleaner doesn't enjoy.

Does that mean I like the current system overall? No - I think tort reform is long overdue - FOR EVERYONE.

Is that clear enough?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I object to one class of corporation (gun manufacturers) enjoying an immunity that Ford or GM or GE or Stanley Tools or my neighborhood dry cleaner doesn't enjoy.

Ford and GE don't have politically motivated groups trying to drum them out of business from the cost of continually defending themselves in court.

. . =(_8^(1)